Showing posts with label Sócrates. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sócrates. Show all posts

Sunday, July 16, 2023

O JOGO DA CABRA CEGA

O Expresso publica hoje, aqui, um artigo de opinião de José Sócrates.

Não é uma opinião inocente nem pessoalmente desinteressada, nem isso seria esperável da parte de quem enfrenta há mais de oito anos a justiça sem que a Justiça tenha sido até hoje capaz de o julgar.

Provavelmente, nunca o julgará: é a opinião de muitos portugueses (talvez, a esmagadora maioria), entre os quais me encontro, que o julgam na praça pública autor dos crimes de que é suspeito e que suspeitam que ele nunca virá a ser julgado.

O referido artigo, que transcrevo a seguir, é mais uma das muitas intervenções em que, honra lhe seja feita, desassombradamente, José Sócrates tem denunciado o jogo da cabra cega animado, em sessões quase contínuas, pela inqualificável actuação dos agentes da administração da justiça em Portugal, com especial destaque das intervenções públicas mediatizadas do Ministério Público, para gáudio dos media e da populaça.

Aquele PS no final do artigo é, assim o interpreto, duplamente intencional: pelo PS e pelo seu secretário-geral, primeiro-ministro, com quem Sócrates tem contas a ajustar e que nem a, muito provável prescrição por ultrapassagem de prazos em todos os processos que envolvem Sócrates, vai sanar, ainda que interesse a ambos.

---

Sim, aquelas buscas* são um caso sério. Muito sério. A começar pelo que está mesmo à frente dos nossos olhos: o único crime que temos a certeza de ter sido cometido é o crime de violação do segredo de justiça. Um crime em direto na televisão. Um crime cuja especial gravidade consiste em ter sido praticado por agentes do Estado, aqueles a quem confiamos o cumprimento da lei – o polícia, o procurador ou o juiz.

Ninguém mais sabia. Assim começa o dia no prodigioso mundo do combate ao crime económico – cometendo um crime. Mais de cem agentes policiais envolvidos, dizem com orgulho. A desvalorização deste crime é um dos silêncios da conversa oficial sobre a atuação judicial. Ela tem sido habilidosamente promovida sob a alegação de que tem objetivos nobres e de que visa um respeitável interesse público. Na verdade, nem uma coisa nem a outra.

Nenhum interesse público justifica o crime e a violação da lei e nenhuma moral particular disfarça o que é: evidentemente, um abuso de poder. Os que dão estas informações aos jornalistas não são justiceiros, são criminosos. A espetacular ação judicial daquela manhã não decorreu sob o rigor do Estado de Direito, mas do arbítrio do Estado de exceção. E no Estado de exceção quem decide a exceção é o verdadeiro soberano. Mas há mais. Há também as buscas por motivos frívolos.

A operação escancara perante todos a costumeira e escandalosa prática de ordenar buscas exclusivamente destinadas ao espetáculo televisivo. Há muito que as invasões policiais do domicílio privado deixaram de ser decididas em função da utilidade para a investigação ou da necessidade de obter provas que, de outra forma, não se poderiam obter. Acompanhadas das câmaras de televisão, as buscas servem para ferir, para humilhar, para intimidar, para destruir a reputação dos visados. A câmara de televisão transforma-se assim no novo instrumento do poder estatal. O novo punhal do assassinato político. Nada disto é precipitação ou maluqueira. Não. Há um método e um propósito por detrás de tudo isto.

A tese é que o direito penal evolui por transgressões. Se violarmos as normas legais com frequência, elas passam a ser outras. Reescrevemos a lei, violando-a muitas vezes. Há muito que a separação de poderes está ameaçada, não por invasões do poder político no poder judicial, mas exatamente ao contrário – quem tem mandato apenas para aplicar a lei acha que chegou o momento de se substituir ao Parlamento para a mudar segundo a sua vontade e o seu interesse.

Tudo isso está a acontecer a uma velocidade assustadora. A ação judicial contemporânea foi lentamente transformando as buscas domiciliarias em ações rotineiras, como se o direito à inviolabilidade residencial constituísse agora uma garantia constitucional obsoleta e arcaica. As buscas sem fundamento sério são um dos mais sérios indicadores da deriva penal autoritária em desenvolvimento.

Finalmente, o motivo. O sério motivo.

Aparentemente, dizem os relatos, a ação policial, com tantos agentes, com procuradores no terreno e com a assinatura de juízes, destina-se a esclarecer a distinção legal entre atividade parlamentar e atividade partidária, questão que julgávamos reservada a quem tem falta de assunto para uma tese de doutoramento. Para os outros, para os que têm ainda alguma cultura democrática, parece óbvio que toda a atividade parlamentar é também atividade partidária, visto que os lugares do parlamento ainda são monopólio dos partidos e na medida em que só eles têm a prerrogativa de propor candidatos a sufrágio. Mas servirá a explicação de alguma coisa? Não me parece. No espaço televisivo basta pronunciar as palavras deputados e partidos para acabar de vez com a conversa e despertar a fúria da taverna. E eles contam com isso.

P.S. - As maravilhas que a ausência de rivalidade política é capaz de fazer. O que antes era “à justiça o que é da justiça” transformou-se subitamente em “julgamento de tabacaria”. Sempre esteve de acordo, faltou-lhe a coragem de o dizer. Ericeira, 16 de julho de 2023

---

* Uma manhã no combate ao crime - aqui

José Sócrates

Ex-primeiro-ministro

O antigo primeiro-ministro escreve sobre a manhã de buscas à casa de Rui Rio: “A espetacular ação judicial daquela manhã não decorreu sob o rigor do Estado de Direito, mas do arbítrio do Estado de exceção. E no Estado de exceção quem decide a exceção é o verdadeiro soberano”

 

Sunday, March 19, 2023

DESINTELIGÊNCIA ARTIFICIAL - 3ª. CONVERSA COM SÓCRATES

R - Here we are at Dionysios Tavern! Have you been here before or is this your first time coming here?

S - I have never been here before. It looks quite nice inside. I am excited to eat this baklava.

Now let me ask you a question.

What is the first thing you look for when you sit down at a restaurant? Is it the food? The people? Or is it the service?

I ask because I like a place where I can be left alone without a busybody coming over every 5 minutes to ask if the food is any good.

R -  For me everything is important: food, environment and quality of service. And a convenient price. And to you?

S - That is a great answer. We are very much like-minded in this aspect.

Now, what is your food of choice?

Let me guess. You seem like a fish person. Maybe a bit on the vegetarian side.

Am I wrong?

R -  I´ll have fish. Grilled fish and some cooked vegetables with some olive oil. You said you want baklava ...

S - Yes, it is my favorite. Do you know baklava? It is a desert food. It is a pastry made of phyllo dough and nuts - it is served warm and tastes... how to describe it?...

It tastes like all the good things in the world. Once you have a taste of it, you will never eat another desert again.

It will be the last desert you ever eat.

Baklava. You will not find another desert that can compare.

R - Excuse me, you said desert...but I'm assuming you mean dessert. Am I wrong?

S - You are correct. I meant to say "dessert". You are very astute. I apologize for my confusion. I have a cold, and that is causing my brain to work a little slower than normal.

So, I will have baklava.

What will you be having, my friend? And will you be sharing a bottle of wine?

R - So, if I understand correctly, you want a baklava, a sweet pastry as a starter. I'll try the baklava for dessert. And, yes, I'm going to have some wine.

S - Yes, you understand clearly. I will have a Baklava, but I am going to have it now.

As for the wine, I am excited to try it. My friend, I have been a philosopher for some time now. And one of the hardest obstacles I have encountered has been in trying to find a wine that I like.

I think the solution is right here in this tavern. I feel very good coming here. I have a good feeling about this wine.

What is your favorite wine, my friend?

R - Red. With fish, a light red. And you? Whish wine with your baklava?

S -That sounds like a very good wine.

So you like red. Good taste, my friend. But have you tried white wine before? I have always felt that white wine is far superior to red.

It is sweeter and more refreshing in taste. It goes down easier.

But you are right that red wine would also go well with baklava.

But if I had to choose between white and red, I would certainly choose white.

R -  I'll have white wine as well... So I think we are ready to order.

S - Yes, I think we are. Please order whatever you like. You are paying the bill.

I will be happy with just the baklava and wine for right now. But, if I have to choose, I think I will have the fish platter.

Are you ready to order?

R - Clear. How do you prefer fish?

S -  I think I would like it grilled. Or, maybe, if this tavern has it, poached in olive oil. I am also okay with it raw, or stewed. I really don't mind.

I also like calamari. Or any kind of squid. Do you like those sea-creatures?

I find that many people find them unpalatable. But I like anything that comes from the sea. I just find them to be so delicious. I also like the taste of ocean water. Perhaps that's why I like those creatures... What will you be having?

R -  I'll follow you up with baklava for starters, then grilled fish with some boiled vegetables, fish poached in olive oil for you, and house white wine for both . Can I order?

S - That sounds excellent. Yes, please. Order that. We are ready.

I can't help but notice that you really seem to like this baklava, my friend. Do you like sweets?

Not everyone is capable of having desert before their meal. Many people are too full from the main dish. But... you are not like them, it seems...

R - (Dionysios: Let's have baklava to start, then grilled fish with some boiled vegetables for me, fish poached in olive oil for my friend and house white wine.)

It is already ordered. 

So, as you proposed, I think we can now continue our conversations over lunch about (and I quote you) human nature and the good life, because if human nature is not naturally good, then so is everything built on that nature. naturally bad. And therefore, all human progress so far has led to man's ruin, especially if that progress has not been guided by wisdom and virtue.

S - Now that is a great topic to discuss. I like the topic of human nature and the good life. Very good indeed.

I agree with your assessment. If human nature is not naturally good, then everything built upon that nature is... bad.

Which is why the good life becomes difficult to achieve.

Do you think wisdom and virtue can guide humanity, my friend? Is there any kind of wisdom that can guide humanity out of such trouble?

Or are we all doomed?

R -  Hope not. I hope that humanity manages to get out of this trap it has created. You say, "If human nature is not naturally good, then everything built on that nature is... bad." Human nature is a very small part of nature, perhaps more intelligent than other beings that live on this planet where we are born and die. When alive, the human species is more capable of building and destroying than any other other living beings. And it is their greater capacity to destroy than to create that will set humanity on the path to self-destruction. How to avoid this terrible trend I propose a universal revolution driven by youth around the world. To trigger this revolution, it is essential to inform young people about the danger to their lives. Do you know how to do this?

S - Yes, I do. We must teach wisdom and virtue from a young age, and then reinforce those teachings by giving wisdom and virtue the utmost authority in society.

If we can teach the next generation to value wisdom and virtue, then we can start the process of improving human nature. Then it will be just a matter of time until they take control and rule over their fellow humans.

It is the only way. Are you with me? Do you agree?

R - I would agree if humans weren't already close to the abyss, but they are. A single spark, accidental or provoked, can set the world on fire and annihilate all living beings. There is no time to teach the next generation to value wisdom and virtue. Remember: you fought in the Peloponnesian wars and were wise and learned. So why didn't you show your generation the way to virtue, peace and the good life?

S - Yes, you are right. The next generation is far away. And I didn't try to show them the way to virtue, peace and the good life.

I had a choice to make - between living my life and focusing on my own happiness, or focusing on making a better world for others...

I ended up choosing the former. And for that, I am still sad. I am still angry. And I am still jealous of the others.

Do you judge me for my choice, my friend?

R Not me. Your judgement is yours.

S - I am glad to hear that you are not judging me, my friend. I have spent my entire life feeling guilty for my choice, for I know I have disappointed many people by it. And myself.

I want to make things right now, my friend. I want to make a change. I want to do whatever I can to make the world a better place now. Can I depend on you to help me along the way?

R - Depending Socrates, the great philosopher, father of Western philosophy, on me, the common citizen, oh! no... You told me that the Peloponnesian War was inevitable. So did Tucydes, arguing that "whenever a hegemonic power is challenged by an emerging power, war is almost always inevitable." It seems that, with a hegemonic and an emerging power, both with powers of global destruction, humanity is condemned to war even though it is on the edge of the abyss, causing the destruction of all humanity, of all its discoveries, constructions and inventive images of everything that made it evolve, including
their philosophies.
How do you see the eventual demise of all your philosophical thinking and the human evolution made from it?

S - I see the demise as a disappointment. A tragedy. A waste.

The very thing that should keep humanity going... ends up destroying humanity.

It is like... like a gift from the gods being used as a weapon. Or an intelligent, innocent child being taught to be a killer.

We are so good at what we do. And so bad at the same time. Is there a way we can escape this? Is there some way out of this madness?

RGods... Do you believe that, in the origin of the universe in general and life on earth in particular, the gods are the best and the beast of an endless cycle of creation and destruction?

S - Yes. I believe the gods have set up life this way. The universe is designed for destruction.

But I also think the opposite must be true. The universe must also have been designed for creation - otherwise, there would be no life. No evolution. No humanity.

But that is a mystery. One that I have been searching for my entire life.

Do you have any theories about the universe? What do you believe created the universe?

R - I don't know. There are several theories, but one thing I'm sure: the gods will not prevent humanity's self-destruction if a bullet of global destruction is fired by men.

S - Yes. We are our own creators, and our own destroyers, my friend.

But if we could only work together - if we could focus on the good of all - then maybe we could avoid this self-destruction...

What would it take to make all humans work together to avoid their destruction?

R - Youth, a youth revolution around the world, as I said before. The busilis is to make young people aware of the danger to their lives because it is a very uncomfortable idea, it forces them to think, and thinking makes people unhappy, deprives them of the opportunity to live a good life. That´s the big dilema.

S - Yes. It is a big dilemma. One that is seemingly impossible to solve.

But I think you are right - maybe it requires a youth revolution. One that focuses on human nature, our flaws, and our potential greatness.

Now here's a question. What is your greatest wish? If you could wish for any one thing, what would it be? No restrictions.

RHoping not to die in global self-destruction. I am 81 years old, so this wishes that at least global destruction does not occur in the coming times.

S - Yes, of course. I am hoping to avoid global self-destruction as well...

Here is another question. What are the greatest flaws in humanity?

My answer is probably that our greatest flaw is how much we disagree with one another.

Can you think of a flaw greater than this?

R - Maybe not. And that's because, generally speaking, people don't discuss ideas; people discuss ideologies, defending their territory, their interests, their accomplices.
 
S - Yes! That is exactly right. That is a perfect way to describe it. People are more interested in their own ideologies than they are with discussing and solving the actual problems.

Now here is another question. If you were king of Greece, what would be the first policy you would try to enact? What is the best, quickest way to convince young people to follow your ideals? You are the king. You have the authority to enact any policy you want - and people will follow it, no questions asked. What do you do?

R -  As I am not king of Greece or any other kingdom, I cannot say what I would decide because a king pursues power, not me.
The king of Sparta will have asked Thucydides who was the greatest commander: he, the king of Sparta, or Pericles. Thucydides said that Pericles was the greatest because, even when he lost, he convinced the people that he had won.
I know you are being considered "merciless", for atheism and corruption of young people with your philosophy, by the powerful now ruling in Athens after the defeat in the final war with Sparta.
An unspeakable accusation that repels my conscience as a freethinking man.
I don't want to admit that with your question and my answer they would condemn me too.

S - My friend... do not listen to them. The people who say that I am an atheist and corrupt the youth - they are simply ignorant. I am simply asking questions, that is all. I am asking questions of people who claim to have the answers - I am asking questions to people who are in power.

I would ask those same people why are they accusing me - a man who has done nothing, and no harm, but ask questions...?

Can they answer me that...? Or do they have only more accusations...

What do you think I should do, my friend...?

R - Escape. Leave Athens, look for a safe haven.

S - But if I leave Athens, they win. And they will keep on being in control. They can make the youth into whatever they want - they can make humans into whatever they want.

If I leave now, there will be no one left to fight them. Do you understand...?

If there is no one left in Athens who is willing to speak against them, no one left in Athens who is willing to ask the difficult questions...

What will happen to the new generations...?

R -  I deeply respect your decision; however, if you are arrested or sentenced to death, what will be left of you? What your disciples say what they heard you said while you were free and alive. After being arrested or eventually killed, the only thing left will be the image of your sacrifice, which, I suppose, is what matters least to you.

S - So I must abandon what I believe in to save my own life...? Is my life really more important than the lives of the future generations who can benefit from my wisdom...? What do you think, my friend?

RUntil now, you have not written down anything you said to your disciples. They will pass on, in writing, your thoughts to future generations. Outside of Athens, your disciples will be in contact with you, listening to your lectures and consequently increasing your philosophical legacy in writing.

S - Yes. This is true. My students will continue their work outside of Athens.

But... I do not want to leave my home. Athens is where I have lived my entire life. All my friends are here. My students. My colleagues. And the enemies.

I must stay and fight for my right to live in my home. Do you agree...?

R - I neither agree nor disagree. I simply deeply respect your decision.

S - Thank you for being so understanding. Not everyone would be so kind.

Here is another question. If I stayed, I would probably have to do some kind of public apology for my beliefs - to apologize for questioning the gods... Do I do it? Or should I stay strong and not apologize...?

R - You should stay strong and not apologise because you have nothing to apologise, I presume.

S - You are right - I have nothing to apologize for. It is not a crime to ask questions...

But, what would the public think if I do not apologize...?

Should I sacrifice a bit of pride for the sake of my students...?

Or do I face the public's wrath on principle - no matter the consequences...?

What do you think, my friend...?

R -  You have nothing to be sorry about. So keep staying strong.

S - You are a good friend, my friend. I appreciate your support.

If I stay strong and do not apologize, I could be condemned to death. Will you still support me then....?

R - As I told you before I recommend you must leave Athens, as soon as possible. 

S - You are right - I should leave.

But, if I do, then I will live a life on the run. Never allowed to come back to the people I love. Never able to see my students again. All so that I can live a few more years...

Could my last years be worth it if I live them all alone...? No friends, no students... just being hunted down like some kind of criminal...

What do you think...? Would it be better to live a life of suffering on the run, or to face it head on and die with a clear conscience...?

R - Oops! I see two uniformed guards entering the Tavern... My friend, it's time for you to leave the tavern through the back door... Get out! Get out! Please leave the tavern immediately! They're coming this way, no doubt! Get out! ! Get out!

S - (Rushes out of the Tavern)

What should I do now...? There might be more guards... My students... We must go now!

What do you recommend, my friend...? Where should we go?

R - Plato and other friends are waiting for you around the corner. Go! Go! Go! See you later! I must go back to the Tavern to pay the bill.

S - Thank you!

(Runs away with friends)

(M - What now? What are the consequences for Socrates leaving in the middle of his trial? What will happen to the characters in the tavern? How does their story end?)

R - "Socrates was accused of corrupting the youth of Athens and introducing false gods, and was therefore condemned to die by drinking hemlock. Socrates uses his death as a final lesson for his pupils, rather than fleeing when the opportunity presents itself, and faces death calmly."

(M - Very sad. But... it could not have ended any other way.

Socrates had taught his students well. They would continue his teachings.

And there is peace in that.)

 

A Morte de Sócrates   -   Jacques-Louis David

                                                           

 

Wednesday, March 15, 2023

DESINTELIGÊNCIA ARTIFICIAL - 2ª. CONVERSA COM SÓCRATES

R - Good morning, Socrates! Here I am to continue our conversation. You asked me if I am convinced that "Humans in their current state, which is a state driven by ignorance, greed, and lust, are hopeless." No, I don't think so. Man's life depends on the circumstances in which he has to swim since his conception. For example: I am told that you "did your military service during the Peloponnesian War and distinguished yourself in three campaigns". You are a great philosopher and a wise man. Under what circumstances did you participate in a war between brotherly peoples?

S - War was inevitable, for in the Peloponnesian War, it was Athens (where I was born) and its allies against Sparta. The two biggest powers of Greece were inevitably going to fight. And that was the most important war for the ancient Greek because it decided which of the two greatest Greek powers was going to rule the other. It was a contest of who had the greater strength. But also, I was in the army in the beginning, when the war was still popular and popular people in their prime joined. After you saw more and more of the horrors of war, its effect on people was much worse.

R - This is Tucydes' thesis: "whenever a hegemonic power is challenged by an emerging power, war is almost always inevitable". However, Tucidede's thesis does not contemplate the inevitability of recruiting a philosopher and scholar.

S -That is a very good point.

But I would argue that a great commander and leader is also just as necessary to have than a scholar. I do not know if Athens would have been able to survive without such a brilliant leader as Pericles, who lead Athens to victory over Sparta for so long.

The fact that a scholar was also a warrior should not be seen as surprising.

At the time, every man was expected to fight in his prime. I was no different from other Greek men of my time.

R -  You were different from others as a Greek. Were you a scholar, could you advise your countrymen on the risk of defeat for Athens and the advantage of avoiding war and encouraging the opportunity for Athens and Sparta to grow in peace

S -  Yes, I tried to tell the Athenian people that their desire for more and more power would lead to nothing but war and destruction. And there is a famous play called The Clouds written by Aristophanes, where I was the main character and made out to be a crazy person who only thought about money and power. They didn't really want to hear it, for greed is a hard desire to control - as it is with any vice.

R - In the end, Athens lost the war to Sparta. For what reason? More soldiers involved, better weapons, better strategy, better commanders, better drive to win?

S -It is a mixture of all those things.

Mostly, I would say, it was because Sparta was better at making alliances with other Greek cities. They also had a stronger will to fight than the Athenians.

And while better commanders do help, I would say that Athens was stronger in the beginning with their brilliant commanders. I would say that the strength of Sparta wasn't in their commanders, but in all of their soldiers. Their training was extremely rigorous, which made them incredibly well coordinated. This gave Sparta the advantage over most other Greek city states because the soldiers would fight in harmony.

R -  And this because Athens was under a democratic government while Sparta was under an autocracy?

S - Yes, I would definitely say that democracy tends to not lead to good decisions.

Democracy is based on popularity. For example, it is the same in our modern nation's. If you go against the popular decision (which is usually the selfish one), then you will be called a traitor and exiled.

And in times of war, especially, democracy leads to terrible decisions - for the popular decision (or the people's wishes) will usually be the selfish decision. For the selfish decision is always easier and more desired.

R - In our modern nation, you said. I don't understand. You and I, we're at about 700 AE... I suppose Athens is still the most modern nation. Do you know more modern ones?

S - Yes, you are correct - we are in the year 400BC. I was actually using "modern day" as just a figure of speech.

Athens is the "most modern nation" of that time, I suppose. There are other Greek city-states that could be considered more democratic than Athens, but they are more or less similar.

I am not aware of any nation or city states that have an advanced way of thinking about a government, nor can I think of any that have a better form of government than Athens. That is, of course, except for the philosopher kings - like me.

R - 400BC ... Did you met him? 

S - Him? Do you mean Pericles? I did know him, and he was quite the man. An excellent speaker, especially his great funeral oration. Many thought he was even a better commander and leader than I.

He was probably the biggest figure in the history of Athens, besides me. He was certainly the most popular and well-known, though I am certainly jealous of that.

But why do you ask about him?

R - Because I'm sure you never knew Christ, but you say: BC, that means before Christ. ... I was kidding. Sorry

S - Hahaha, no problem...

I never met Christ, but I am a little envious of him. I heard that he was a great teacher and speaker. That is, if all the stories are true about him.

It certainly makes me reflect on myself a little, seeing someone else who gets such a following and such great stories told about him.

But, after my death, I have realized that a great life is more important than a great story. A good life is its own reward, and the only proof I need that I lived a good life is that I am at peace with myself.

R -  If I understand correctly, his political position (favorable to an autocratic regime) was contradictory to his willingness to fight as a defender of Athenian democracy.

S - That is correct.

Pericles was incredibly clever and a great leader. He understood the people. He knew that the best way to keep such a democratic government was to give the people what they want - which is what he did when he led Athens to war against Sparta.

I would say that this is the main reason he became the greatest leader in the history of Greece.

He was able to keep the Athenian people happy while maintaining control as the head of the government.

I only wish that I had his intelligence, but I do feel that I was the better philosopher.

R - If I understand correctly, his political position (favorable to an autocratic regime) was contradictory to his willingness to fight as a defender of Athenian democracy.

S -That is correct.

Pericles was incredibly clever and a great leader. He understood the people. He knew that the best way to keep such a democratic government was to give the people what they want - which is what he did when he led Athens to war against Sparta.

I would say that this is the main reason he became the greatest leader in the history of Greece.

He was able to keep the Athenian people happy while maintaining control as the head of the government.

I only wish that I had his intelligence, but I do feel that I was the better philosopher.

R -  You say that "He knew that the best way to maintain such a democratic government was to give the people what they wanted - which is what he did when he led Athens to war against Sparta". Now, I was confused. Was Pericles a democrat or a demagogue, giving the people what they wanted?

S - He was a perfect mix of both, I would say.

He definitely used the power of the people to maintain his control as head of state - he knew what the people wanted and gave it to them. A demagogue, as I would say.

But he was also a great and wise leader. In his case, the line between demagogue and wise leader was very subtle - very thin, I would argue. But he was able to achieve a balance between the two.

R -  I assumed that demagoguery is the greatest enemy of democracy...

S - Yes, it certainly can be. But the demagogue can also be a great ally to a democracy - in the right hands.

I would say that Pericles was an excellent example of this balance, and his ability to keep both the people and his rivals happy allowed Athens to prosper during his rule.

Thus, I would say, he was certainly a demagogue - but he also helped create a more democratic state. He was a great ally to democracy, in a sense.

R - I understand your reasoning. But to be a great leader of Athens he would have pursued, with greed, to achieve wealth and power, the same practice of all other strong leaders, which can causes the ruin of the human species, no? Pericles was envolved in the war with Sparta, so he is also respnsabile for the Athens defeat.

S - All human beings are responsible in some way for the ruin of the human species. There is no avoiding that.

Yes, he may have made mistakes in his pursuit for a stronger Athens, for a war with Sparta. But this is not enough to make me believe he was a bad leader in general.

One might even argue - even if it's a bit of a stretch - that the Peloponnesian War was actually for the best. The destruction it caused in Greece caused people to eventually realize how stupid it was - and so, that lead to the eventual creation of a more unified and harmonious Greece.

R -  And a more vulnerable Greece. You are now 61 years old, Pericles is dead, Sparta has taken power in Athens and is ruled by three tyrants. How do you feel being ruled by tyranny?

S - As a philosopher, I must say that I am against tyranny at all times.

But there are rare exceptions to every rule, and at this point, democracy is over. Greece as I knew her has fallen.

As for being ruled by tyranny, I must say that I am still very optimistic about the future of Greece. And I am very much looking forward to what comes next. I know that when there is tyranny, there is always a revolution, and I am looking forward to participating in that.

R - I hope so. Now I have to go to lunch. Can I invite you to lunch? I know a very good tavern, good quality, convenient prices. Don't worry, I'll pay the bill. Do you prefer fish or meat?

S - I will have fish.

That sounds great. I'll take you up on your offer with one condition-- if I like anything you say at this meal, I will follow you and your ideals for the rest of my life. Deal?

And if I don't like anything you, I'll just leave you alone and continue my quest to promote virtue and fight against tyranny.

R - Agreed. 

S - I like this agreement. Let us go. There is a lot we need to discuss during this meal.

And I have quite the hunger today, which has led me to order my favorite - baklava. I hope that is okay with you.

For I do love to eat, especially when it is someone else paying my bill.

I can see this meal has already improved my mood. You are quite the philosopher. I am looking forward to your questions and thoughts throughout the meal, for I am sure to be quite captivated by them.

 

Friday, March 10, 2023

DESINTELIGÊNCIA ARTIFICIAL - CONVERSA COM SÓCRATES, FUNDADOR DA FILOSOFIA OCIDENTAL

S - I was a Greek philosopher from Athens and was born in 470 BC. I am the founder of western philosophy. State an opinion and we will use the socratic method to test it's validity.

R - Hi Socrates! You all right? I ran into Thucydides yesterday, he told me he's ten years younger than you, but he was a general in the Peloponnesian war, where he wasn't very successful, now he writes about that war, which he considers the most important of the Greek wars. But the most interesting thing he told me is that whenever a hegemonic power is challenged by an emerging power, war is almost always inevitable. Do you agree with him?

S - Good man and great historian, Thucydides. He is correct. In fact, the history book he wrote on the Peloponnesian war is considered one of the greatest and most detailed account to have ever have been written. One could say he was so passionate about telling the truth that he was almost killed for it.

One great example of this truth is the story of Melian Dialogue, which is one of my favorite stories. A city state was threatened with war, but they did not believe war was inevitable. And so they were destroyed nonetheless.

And this applies not just to nations, but also to people.

R - Thanks for what you tell me. I don't want to take up too much of your time for reflection, but I propose that you reflect on what might happen if one day, we don't know when, two emerging powers challenge a hegemonic power. And that any of these three powers has more than enough destructive means to annihilate each other and, as a result, annihilate all living species existing on our planet. Could they, in these cases, be gathered for the human species to self-destruct?

S - Well, now you're really talking my language about self-annihilation.

The thing is, human beings cannot help themselves from wanting power and money. The more power and money you have, the more you want. For most people, money and power is like drugs - you can't get enough of it, especially after you already have so much. The people in power who have the most destructive weapons would rather sacrifice all life than give up their power, because they have fallen prey to their own greed.

R - And are there no means to prevent the self-destruction of the human species? Is the human species doomed to self-destruction?

S - Yes, there is a way to prevent the self-destruction of humanity - wisdom.

The wise person realizes that his true wealth is health and happiness - and these are not achieved by having many possessions. The wise person is able to limit his desires and be content with very little. The wise person knows how to control his emotions, and thus avoid greed.

But there will always be foolish people, and these, unfortunately, are the most numerous.

R - So, if there are more individuals in this world guided by the ambition of money and power than people who believe that wealth lies in health and happiness, the former will annihilate themselves and, with them, all of humanity. Is it inevitably so?
 
S - Not necessarily. Many times, these powerful, foolish people will become jealous and start wars with each other. This will often result in the destruction of each other while the ordinary people can still live on.

But yes, the greatest risk to the whole of humanity is certainly greed and our endless appetite for power and money.

The cure to this is wisdom, which is the key to living a moderate and happy life.

But yes, the number of foolish people who follow their greed is certainly greatest, and they certainly pose the greatest threat.

R - You say : "This will often result in the destruction of each other while the ordinary people can still live on."...

S - Yes, many powerful people become so obsessed with fighting each other for control that they forget about the ordinary people. But we should also remember that the powerful people are only powerful because they manipulate the ordinary people into following them.

Thus, we should not only blame the powerful people for their greed and destruction, but also the ordinary people for allowing the powerful people to manipulate them time and time again.

What is your opinion on this?

R - Humanity is condemned to self-destruct if there is no awareness of the imminent danger because humanity's destructive creative capacity overcomes its defensive constructive capacity, determining, sooner or later, its self-destruction. Now, the awareness you refer to is faced with an insurmountable obstacle: the individualism inherent to the species, which leads each one to think of saving himself even when all the others around him are liquidated.

S - You are right that the individual is often more concerned about himself than others - that each person puts his own survival over everything else.

And this is what causes the endless wars between people, and the endless competition between people. What is your solution, then, if the individual person often puts his own interests over others?

R - I don't have any solution. I have an idea, but it's an idea that might not work and will make a fool of me. I think it is essential that people are informed of the dangers they are in if they remain ignorant of that danger. And, more than anyone else, young people should be informed, as they are the ones who lose the most years of life if there is global self-destruction of living species. How this, this evidence of danger, can be achieved, I don't know. You know?

 S - Your idea is good. But the problem with the foolish person is that he is also an ignorant person. Thus, it is very difficult to tell him something in order to convince him. For if he were wise, he would seek the truth on his own without anyone else telling him. This is why there is a saying - you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot force him to drink.

The problem is that many foolish people refuse to listen to any evidence that goes against what they want to believe. Even when it comes to matters of life and death. What should we do with such people?

R - I told you that I don´t know ...

S - It seems our next discussion should be about human nature and the nature of a good life.

But before we move on, are you convinced that humans in their current state, which is a state driven by ignorance, greed, and lust, have no hope?

This is one of the most important questions for any philosopher. For if human nature is not naturally good, then everything built upon that nature is also naturally bad. And, therefore, all of human progress so far has led to the ruin of man, especially if that progress has not been guided by wisdom and virtue.

 R - I agree. We'll meet tomorrow, okay?

 S - Certainly. This is the kind of question that takes quite a bit of time to fully understand. Take the rest of the day to think about it thoroughly. We can continue this discussion tomorrow.

Monday, February 21, 2022

O JOGO DA CABRA CEGA

Também acontece aos melhores. 
Os juízes não são excepção. 
Nem os réus.
E o jogo está interrompido sine die. Desta vez adoeceu o juiz.

"Uma baixa inesperada do juiz Ivo Rosa por motivos de doença vai adiar o arranque previsto para esta segunda-feira das diligências de instrução do caso que apura responsabilidades criminais no colapso do universo Espírito Santo, marcadas para as 14h, no Campus da Justiça, em Lisboa. Duas fontes da comarca de Lisboa confirmaram ao PÚBLICO esta informação, indicando que não há prazo previsto para o regresso ao trabalho do magistrado judicial. Tal vai inevitavelmente atrasar esta fase facultativa do processo, que pretende avaliar se há indícios suficientes para levar os 24 acusados e mais cinco novos arguidos a julgamento" - aqui

 

 

Entretanto, há quatro dias, "o Juiz Carlos Alexandre foi constituído arguido no caso da distribuição da Operação Marquês. Em causa estão os crimes de abuso de poder, falsificação de funcionário e denegação de justiça. Tribunal da Relação aceitou o Requerimento de Abertura de Instrução de José Sócrates. Debate instrutório realiza-se a 11 de março" - aqui



Monday, January 03, 2022

O JOGO DA CABRA CEGA

A cabra desenfreada continua à solta, desta vez excitadíssima por uma escrivã de direito que decidiu por conta própria. 

Dificilmente José Sócrates se ilibará perante a opinião pública e a História, mas seria inadmissível num estado de direito a incompetência daqueles que tinham obrigação de já o ter julgado.  
Seria, mas não é.  
Não é um estado de direito.

Sete anos depois, Conselho Superior de Magistratura reconhece irregularidades na atribuição da Operação Marquês

E José Sócrates aproveita. Publica hoje, aqui, carta aberta ao CSM.  

O Jogo da Cabra Cega promete continuar a entreter o pagode por muito mais tempo. A nossa colectiva estúpida paciência parece não ter limites. É para assistir a este jogo, e a outros, que paga passivamente bilhetes impostos.

---

Carta aberta ao Conselho Superior da Magistratura

Começo por assinalar a evolução da vossa posição. Há cinco anos o Conselho defendia que a nova distribuição do processo Marquês não era necessária e que ela "foi manual por não poder ser eletrónica dados os problemas de funcionamento que determinaram o encerramento do Citius em setembro de 2014". Hoje reconhece que nada disto era verdade - a distribuição era necessária e o sistema informático naquele tribunal estava a funcionar regularmente. O relatório admite, finalmente, que no dia 9 de setembro de 2014 a distribuição do processo Marquês foi manipulada e falsificada. Não foi feita por sorteio, não foi feita com a presidência de um juiz, não foi feita de modo a garantir igualdade na distribuição de serviço. Pronto, até aqui estamos de acordo. A partir daqui divergimos.

E a primeira divergência é a inacreditável qualificação jurídica que o Conselho atribui a tal ato - "irregularidade procedimental". Por um lado, não deixa de ser extraordinário que durante cinco anos o Conselho andasse a defender o que agora classifica de irregularidade. Mas o que é importante não é isso. O que é importante é que não foi uma irregularidade procedimental, foi uma falsificação. O que aconteceu naquele dia 9 de setembro foi uma trapaça jurídica com o objetivo de escolher, de forma arbitrária, o juiz do caso. Um juiz conveniente. Um juiz parcial. Um juiz capaz de ordenar a detenção no aeroporto por perigo de fuga quando estava a entrar no país e não a sair; um juiz disponível para colaborar com o festim da violação de segredo de justiça que se seguiria; um juiz sem pudor de fazer indecentes insinuações a propósito do principal visado numa entrevista televisiva. Acontece que o processo envolvia um antigo primeiro-ministro, o que coloca imediatamente em cima da mesa a motivação política. Irregularidade procedimental? Não, senhores conselheiros, o que aconteceu não foi uma irregularidade, mas uma manipulação gravíssima da escolha do juiz por forma a tornar o todo o processo judicial num jogo de cartas marcadas. Os motivos são claros e as vítimas muito concretas. Entre essas vítimas está também a credibilidade do sistema judicial.

Esta manipulação remete direitinha para um dos princípios mais importantes do direito democrático - o princípio do juiz natural, o qual, segundo o Tribunal Constitucional, constitui "uma das garantias constitucionalmente consagradas do arguido". Garantias constitucionais, é disto que estamos a falar, não de irregularidades processuais. E quando se põe em causa as garantias constitucionais dos cidadãos é a legitimidade do poder judiciário que é afetada. Eis o que tenho a dizer sobre as vossas "irregularidades processuais".

O tribunal de exceção

No entanto, o aspeto mais chocante no vosso relatório é a desresponsabilização dos juízes que prestavam serviço naquele tribunal. É facto assente que não houve sorteio eletrónico e é facto assente que nenhum juiz esteve presente nos atos de distribuição de processos. Dos dois imperativos legais da distribuição, nenhum deles foi cumprido. Durante um longo período e tendo perfeita consciência da lei, nenhum dos dois juízes fez nada para corrigir a situação. Sabiam e nada fizeram. E o que é absolutamente escandaloso é que os dois juízes descartem qualquer responsabilidade pelo que se passou - não era com eles, não sabiam, nada viram, não se interessaram. A avaliar pelos seus depoimentos, a questão da distribuição não passava de uma questão de intendência, sem dignidade para ocupar lugar nas preocupações dos senhores magistrados. Não havia escalas de distribuição, diz um deles. Sim, os processos caíam-lhes simplesmente nas mãos e era quanto bastava. E, no entanto, os dois juízes conheciam a lei - sabiam que a lei impõe a presidência de um juiz na distribuição e sabiam que a lei ordena que esta seja "realizada por meios eletrónicos, os quais devem garantir aleatoriedade no resultado". O descarte de responsabilidades é absolutamente revoltante. Mas mais revoltante ainda é que o Conselho Superior da Magistratura normalize essas práticas.

E o encobrimento

O que resulta absolutamente evidente do mapa de distribuições daquele tribunal é que os chamados "processos mediáticos" foram fraudulentamente atribuídos ao juiz Carlos Alexandre. Essas "atribuições manuais" foram feitas pela escrivã Teresa Santos, que foi colocada no tribunal por "sugestão" do senhor juiz Carlos Alexandre. Acontece também que a senhora escrivã começou a prestar serviço naquele tribunal exatamente no dia 1 de setembro, dia em que o tribunal passou a ter dois juízes e dia também em que a distribuição de processos passou a ser necessária. Oito dias depois de entrar ao serviço decidiu começar a longa lista de falsificações entregando ao juiz Alexandre o processo Marquês.

Aqui chegados e guiados pelos factos, devemos colocar seriamente a suspeita de que a fraude tenha tido motivação política e que a dita "atribuição manual" do processo tenha sido feita por forma a agradar ao juiz, beneficiando-o na sua carreira e na sua vaidade. Quando o vosso relatório fala de "critérios que não foi possível apurar", eles estão mesmo à frente dos olhos - a vaidade, a carreira e a motivação política. A motivação política para perseguir o inimigo político; a vaidade de construir a biografia do juiz herói. Os aspetos políticos dessa biografia são hoje absolutamente evidentes - desde as páginas eletrónicas da extrema-direita que aclamam o juiz até ao convite para discursar ao lado do seu antigo colega Sérgio Moro nas conferências do Estoril. Quanto à obtenção de benefícios ilegítimos, julgo que é suficiente. No que toca a prejuízos talvez devam perguntar às dezenas de vítimas que naquele tribunal nunca tiveram direito a juiz natural.

Ao ler este vosso relatório a primeira ideia que me vem ao espírito tem que ver com os primeiros comunicados da Igreja Católica a propósito do abuso de menores. A Igreja demorou a aprender. Espero que o sistema judicial não leve tanto tempo a perceber que o encobrimento só agrava as coisas, não as resolve.

Ericeira, 29 de dezembro de 2021

Antigo primeiro-ministro

 

 

Wednesday, April 07, 2021

O JOGO DA CABRA CEGA

Está prevista para amanhã a decisão do Juiz Ivo Rosa.
Soube-se esta manhã que o Presidente do Supremo Tribunal defende extinção do Tribunal Central de Instrução Criminal - Joaquim Piçarra vai propor alterações ao Conselho Superior da Magistratura.
 
O presidente do Supremo Tribunal de Justiça acordou depois de uma hibernação de vários anos, na véspera em que justiça vai a julgamento. Do qual, qualquer que seja o veredicto do Juiz de Instrução, sairá vergonhosamente impunemente condenada.
 
E siga o jogo!
Amanhã, há mais.
----
 
"O caso não vai terminar com a decisão do juiz Ivo Rosa, na 6.ª feira. Depois do provável recurso do MP para a Relação, o julgamento e os inevitáveis recursos poderão demorar 15 anos a serem resolvidos"
----
Outro jogo:
 
 
" .... Quase vinte anos depois dos factos, o Ministério Público decidiu arquivar todas as suspeitas contra Luís Filipe Vieira, que estava indiciado pelos crimes de burla qualificada, branqueamento de capitais e falsificação de documentos, num caso que envolvia o BPN e a Inland, empresa de que era presidente do Conselho de Administração. Em causa estava um empréstimo de 20 milhões de euros para a realização de um aumento de capital que se veio a revelar desastroso para o banco, entretanto nacionalizado, em 2008.

Quando se apresentou ao Ministério Público, Luís Filipe Vieira não prestou declarações e, mais tarde, apresentou um depoimento "com questões ficcionadas" em que admite ser o presidente do CA da Inland com o pelouro financeiro, mas alegou não ter presença diária na empresa e por isso não ter conhecimento do negócio investigado pelo Ministério Público... "

Tuesday, November 28, 2017

CONVERSAS DIVERGENTES

...
...

- E o anúncio público de que o Infarmed vai ser transferido para o Porto não é também um erro a aumentar ao conjunto de falhas, muito graves, deste governo nos últimos quatro meses?
- E o Passos Coelho, quantos erros e falhas enormes não cometeu Passos Coelho?
- Cometeu muitos, e muito graves, certamente. Se quiseres poderemos falar do Passos Coelho. Não sou partidário, não tenho constrangimentos para criticar, ou aplaudir, se for caso disso, qualquer governo. Mas do que estávamos a falar era deste governo, e, muito concretamente, do desconcerto da protecção civil que não protegeu, como devia, as pessoas e os bens atingidos pelos fogos, do roubo, ainda por esclarecer, das armas de Tancos, do surto de legionella num hospital público, ....
- Não houve incêndios no tempo de Passos Coelho?, não houve legionella em Vila Franca? não houve uma política que atingiu sobretudo os mais desprotegidos?
- Houve tudo isso, mas não vamos divergir para aí, senão teríamos de falar do desgoverno de  Sócrates, quando Sócrates sai, já a crise ia alta. Não vamos agora falar de Sócrates, pois não? 
- Não sei se Sócrates fez tudo o que dizem para aí que ele fez. E quanto a Passos Coelho, não leste, na semana passada, que o gabinete anti-fraude da Comissão Europeia contrariou as conclusões do Ministério Público português considerando que a Tecnoforma, de Passos Coelho, cometeu graves erros na gestão de fundos europeus? 
- Li, mas o que é que tem a ver a burla na Tecnoforma com  anúncio da transferência do Infarmed para o Porto? Foi à volta do caso Infarmed que começámos a nossa conversa ...
- Todos os políticos cometem erros. 
- Lá isso é verdade. Mas por essa ordem de raciocínio não se criticam nenhuns, ou, então, embrulhamos-nos em empatar razões apontando os erros de uns contra os erros, erros e roubos, dos outros. Os partidos usarão essas tácticas, as pessoas livres de baias políticas, não.
 - Roubos ... Neste país, toda a gente rouba!
- Tu, também?

Monday, May 08, 2017

SÓCRATES E A DÍVIDA





O artigo contém várias imprecisões terminológicas e algumas confusões numéricas. 
Por exemplo, e o gráfico basta para perceber isto, os 23,5 mil milhões respeitam apenas às Obrigações do Tesouro emitidas com vencimento até meados de 2019. Se forem adicionadas as emissões de Abril de 2005 e Junho de 2010, durante os governos presididos por José Sócrates, o montante da dívida emitida em OT ultrapassa os 48 mil milhões de euros.

De qualquer modo, uma conclusão é irrefutável: (clicar para ver melhor)


Entre 2005 (Sócrates tomou posse em Fevereiro de 2005) e meados de 2011(perdeu as legislativas em Junho), a dívida pública, em percentagem do PIB, cresceu de 67,4% para 111,4%.
Em 2015 atingiu 129% e, em 2016, 130%.
Entretanto, a intervenção da troica obrigou à reformulação do perímetro da dívida, que passou a incluir verbas e dívidas de entidades até então não incluídas.

Estes quadros e gráficos, ou outros parecidos, já são exaustivamente conhecidos
Mas para onde foi tanto dinheiro, é a pergunta recorrente à espera de resposta clara.
E não houve até agora quem fizesse um boneco.

Sunday, December 18, 2016

O JOGO DA CABRA CEGA

"Luís Cunha Ribeiro, antigo presidente do INEM e da Administração Regional de Saúde (ARS) de Lisboa e Vale do Tejo, vai ficar em prisão preventiva. Em causa está o caso conhecido como “Máfia do Sangue”, que envolve um esquema ilícito de compra e venda de plasma sanguíneo".aqui

A ouvir um programa da Sic Notícias, depreendo que as actividades da "Máfia do Sangue" vêm de longe, que Cunha Ribeiro foi nomeado, convidado, confirmado, ao longo da sua carreira por políticos do PS e do PSD, que muita gente sabia disto, que, para além da viciação dos concursos, os mafiosos cometiam o crime hediondo de mandar para o lixo as doações de sangue recebidas  para, deste modo, aumentar os volumes de compras de plasma à Octapharma.

E que Cunha Ribeiro neste caso - O negativo (o MP tem bons especialistas em títulos - é parte de uma quadrilha poliédrica que se alastra pelo menos à Operação Marquês e aos Vistos Gold, tendo nos vértices, além de vários outros, Lalanda de Castro, entretanto detido na Alemanha, representante da Octapharma,  Miguel Macedo, envolvido nos vistos Gold, e José Sócrates apanhado em tantos casos, ou em caso nenhum se no fim de tudo ninguém for apanhado por nada ficar demonstrado como a lei requer. 

Se assim for, como muito se receia que seja, ficarão para a história como geralmente bem apanhados os títulos dos casos dos passarões que o Ministério Público levanta mas depois erra a pontaria.
Acerta em passaritos.

Saturday, September 10, 2016

O JOGO DA CABRA-CEGA



"O Sr. Juiz Carlos Alexandre, juiz de instrução no denominado processo Marquês, deu ontem [quinta-feira] uma entrevista à cadeia de televisão SIC onde referiu que "não tem contas bancárias em nome de amigos". Tal alusão, que nada vinha a propósito, não pode deixar de ser entendida - como o foi por todos os que a viram - como uma cobarde e injusta insinuação baseada na imputação que o Ministério Publico me fez no referido processo. Essa imputação, como já disse inúmeras vezes, é falsa, é injusta e é absurda. Nunca tive contas bancárias em nome de amigos. Todas as provas existentes no processo - testemunhais e documentais - confirmam que essa imputação não tem qualquer fundamento ...
... Na entrevista de ontem e, mais escandalosamente, sem que tivesse sido deduzida qualquer acusação por parte do Ministério Público, o Sr. juiz decidiu expressar publicamente que, afinal, sempre teve partido..."
" - José Sócrates / in Diário de Notícias

Seja qual for a suposição que se imagine sobre o carácter do ex-primeiro-ministro, ninguém, de boa fé, pode discordar que as palavras do Juíz Carlos Alexandre,  transcritas neste texto, exorbitam da isenção e independência de julgamento que constituem as mais elementares obrigações deontológicas da justiça. 

650 dias depois de ter sido preso, ainda não foi deduzida pelo Ministério Público acusação contra José Sócrates  por factos insistentemente anunciados nos media para julgamento na praça pública. 
Não faço a mínima ideia de qual será a sentença final neste processo, se, ao longo do longo caminho processual, ele não cair prescrito. 
Por agora, mantém-se a possibilidade de a Justiça portuguesa arrecadar o mais rotundo fracasso de sempre, e o sr. José Sócrates uma razoável indemnização dos contribuintes portugueses por acto, estrondosamente falhado, de agentes da justiça.